ArticlePloS one2020
Evaluation of DNA markers for molecular identification of three Piper species from Brazilian Atlantic Rainforest.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genetic diversity and population differentiation in Earliella scabrosa, a pantropical species of Polyporales.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Conventional and molecular pharmacognostic characters integrated with chemical profiles of five Piper plants in the Thai herbal pharmacopoeia and their admixture/adulteration/substitution situations in Thailand.Journal of natural medicines · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Piper is one of two large genera in the Piperaceae, and with ca. 2600 species, is one of the largest plant genera in the world. Species delimitation and evaluation of genetic diversity among populations are important requisites for conservation and adequate exploitation of economically important species. DNA barcoding has been used as a powerful tool and a practical method for species characterization and delimitation. The present work aims to evaluate molecular markers for barcoding three Piper species native to Brazil: P. gaudichaudianum ("jaborandi" or "pariparoba"), P. malacophyllum ("pariparoba-murta") and P. regnellii ("caapeba" or "pariparoba"). A reference DNA barcode library was developed using sequences of three candidate regions: ITS2, trnH-psbA and rbcL. Transferability of the microsatellite (SSR) primers Psol 3, Psol 6 and Psol 10, designed originally for Piper solmsianum, to the three Piper species was also evaluated. The discriminatory power of the markers was based on the determination of inter- and intraspecific distances, phylogenetic reconstruction, and clustering analysis, as well as BLASTn comparison. Sequences of ITS2 enabled efficient species identification by means of the BLASTn procedure. Based on these sequences, intraspecific divergence was lower than interspecific variation. Maximum Parsimony analyses based on ITS2 sequences provided three resolved clades, each corresponding to one of the three analysed species. Sequences of trnH-psbA and rbcL had lower discriminatory value. Analyses combining sequences of these regions were less effective toward the attainment of resolved and strongly supported clades of all species. In summary, robustly supported clades of P. regnellii were obtained in most of the analyses, based either on isolated or combined sequences. The SSRs primers Psol 3, Psol 6 and Psol 10 were shown to be transferable to P. gaudichaudianum and P. regnellii, but not to P. malacophyllum. Preliminary cluster analyses based on the polymorphism of the amplified products suggested that Psol 3 has lower potential than Psol 6 and Psol 10 for discrimination of Piper species.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.